Search

OTTAWA – A mass shooting has taken the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown Connecticut. This atrocity can only be described as a tragedy, and no matter how conservative psychopaths try to pin this on God’s absence from schools and a lack of guns, those with an iota of common sense fully understand that the time has long since passed to comprehensively tackle the threat guns pose to the safety of the people.
Eclipse News wants to contribute to the discussion. So we are outlining for you some simple arguments against gun proliferation and some counterpoints to what conservatives and libertarian Sun fans try to pass off as arguments.

If everyone had a gun, these tragedies would be prevented and minimized

This argument for gun “rights” typically insists upon the persuasive power of widespread gun possession; that is, if everyone has a gun, would-be shooters will be too afraid to go on rampages for fear of being shot. It then follows that more responsible gun-holding members of society would then stop anyone who did attempt to shoot something up.

This only works in a world in which absolutely nobody has any mental health problems. A gun-toting maniac generally doesn’t care if he gets shot, and probably often enough doesn’t imagine he would be.

And widespread gun possession can hardly be considered an effective gun-violence deterrent. If it was, Somalia, Northern Ireland and Colombia would be the most peaceful places on Earth.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people

Right. Guns do not walk around of their own accord shooting people. But guns have no other function than killing. They are weapons designed to launch projectiles to cut through flesh and bone at high speeds. Simply enough, without a gun, it is impossible for shootings to happen

It’s in the Constitution

Gun enthusiasts typically cite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in defence of their position.

They rarely actually cite the entire text of the Amendment, since it does not accord Americans the right to carry guns without any control or regulation.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

Notice that the Amendment conditions the right to bear arms upon a “well regulated Militia.” A militia is an amateur makeshift military force raised from the civilian population to aid the professional armed forces in emergencies, and it is controlled by the state to a “well regulated” degree. That means that when Chief Pontiac and the Odawa Nation attack Detroit, the people can use their guns to defend themselves, completely relevant today. It has nothing to do with any yahoo picking up an assault rifle beside the nail salon after buying a 12 pack at the gas station

It’s also worth noting that when the Second Amendment was written, the vast majority of the population was rural, and farm life made gun possession necessary for chasing off wolves and vermin. Back then there was also no police force in the countryside, so you were on your own when it came to bandits.

Lastly, in the late 1700s guns shot one bullet ball at a time, were highly inaccurate, and took a very long time to reload. A would-be shooter would be lucky to kill one person with his gun before being apprehended.

Switzerland has widespread gun possession and a low crime rate

Yes, but Switzerland also has mandatory universal conscription. That means everybody has military training and knows how to use guns responsibly; likewise, people with mental problems are screened out and thus have less access to these weapons.

This is not the case in the US, where any undisciplined yahoo or drunk can get his hands on a weapon.

We need guns to protect us from the tyranny of the government

That’s right. Your collection of glocks is going to protect your from squads of highly-trained military professionals. Good luck with that.

Heroes

Eclipse News would just like to note that the heroes of this tragedy were not gun-enthusiasts. The people who saved lives were brave public school teachers, the same people Sun News loves to bash.

One Response to “Mass murder means we need gun control”

Excellent piece. While I somewhat disagree with your response for the need of guns to protect us from government, I do think that they should only be a protection from government as a very last resort, when all other peaceful avenues are blocked.

As for the part where you mention guns during the 1700’s, I think the term you’re looking for is flintlock and musket respectively, or just muskets.